Technology Marches On: Laser Rifles
- Thread starter SSWarlock
- Start date
Blinding lasers are a nasty weapon. I expect sooner or later they will be placed on the prohibited list of international treaties. But they are easy to defeat. protective eyewear is not that expensive, or difficult to make. and if you are really in a bad mood adapt a hellfire to home in on a blinding laser 
wbnc said:Blinding lasers are a nasty weapon. I expect sooner or later they will be placed on the prohibited list of international treaties. But they are easy to defeat. protective eyewear is not that expensive, or difficult to make. and if you are really in a bad mood adapt a hellfire to home in on a blinding laser
They are specifically banned now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
dragoner said:wbnc said:Blinding lasers are a nasty weapon. I expect sooner or later they will be placed on the prohibited list of international treaties. But they are easy to defeat. protective eyewear is not that expensive, or difficult to make. and if you are really in a bad mood adapt a hellfire to home in on a blinding laser
They are specifically banned now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
Ah, good. I mean yeah in war you may have to kill some people, and people end up maimed but weapons that are designed to leave people permanently disabled...thats where they draw the line.
as for the value of such a device I am kind of dubious. I mean it sort of tells everyone in the neighborhood "Hey I'm Here" even if it's a drone you have blinded to keep it from getting detailed information, nothing stops people from bringing in more drones, or just dropping artillery on the area.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Large lasers that can be used as blasters or point defence systems are alright.
Ones that can be used to blind people, that terrorists may more easily obtain, would for obvious reasons get suppressed.
Though I suppose at some point all airliners will have their cockpit windows fitted with materials that will reflect them.
Ones that can be used to blind people, that terrorists may more easily obtain, would for obvious reasons get suppressed.
Though I suppose at some point all airliners will have their cockpit windows fitted with materials that will reflect them.
wbnc said:dragoner said:wbnc said:Blinding lasers are a nasty weapon. I expect sooner or later they will be placed on the prohibited list of international treaties. But they are easy to defeat. protective eyewear is not that expensive, or difficult to make. and if you are really in a bad mood adapt a hellfire to home in on a blinding laser
They are specifically banned now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
Ah, good. I mean yeah in war you may have to kill some people, and people end up maimed but weapons that are designed to leave people permanently disabled...thats where they draw the line.
as for the value of such a device I am kind of dubious. I mean it sort of tells everyone in the neighborhood "Hey I'm Here" even if it's a drone you have blinded to keep it from getting detailed information, nothing stops people from bringing in more drones, or just dropping artillery on the area.
The solution would be to move after blinding the drone, then using Giap's tactic of hugging the enemy to prevent the use of overwhelming firepower from artillery due to fratricide ... I can see some value. Though weapons often push the boundaries of what is legal, the NATO 5.56 cartridge is accused of being a preform fragmenting round, something declared illegal as well.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Or pilots.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Supposedly optional on the Sixth Generation fighters.
With airliners, Heinlein pointed out the psychological barriers that would hindering passenger uptake.
You're probably stuck with the minimum complement of two pilots, and one stewardess to make sure that both seats are always occupied (and keep an eye on the other pilot).
With airliners, Heinlein pointed out the psychological barriers that would hindering passenger uptake.
You're probably stuck with the minimum complement of two pilots, and one stewardess to make sure that both seats are always occupied (and keep an eye on the other pilot).
I'm betting that time will show that Heinlein's assertion to be groundless.
People already accept vehicles like roller coasters to not require a "driver."
Modern airliners largely fly themselves without human intervention. The more tricky parts are handled by human pilots; I'm sure the technology exists even now to let computers handle that as well but it's probably cheaper upfront and better for airline companies to have human pilots at the moment.
Right now, a variety of companies are rolling out "driverless" cars. I can't say how this experiment will turn out; I hope it goes well. I personally hate the waste of time of driving if some computer can handle it safely while I play with my smartphone or something, I'm all for it. It also promises mobility for the elderly and similar people who cannot get driver's licenses in our world.
Most certainly, we'll see things like driverless cars, operatorless trains, and captainless boats before pilotless airplanes. But then again, I could be wrong in that; there's a lot more money in airplanes than trains or boats so there might be more capital to develop it.
However, if such cars get accepted, I foresee a future where people would be perfectly accepting of pilotless airplanes. The idea sounds vaguely unsettling to us but who knows what our kids will think. Or their kids for that matter. People can adapt to many things, especially if it makes little difference to them in the end. Initial versions would most certainly still have the pilot as a Larry Niven-esque "the ship handles everything for me but wearing my uniform" type thing, but eventually I'd think that pilots would be eliminated as an unnecessary expense during some cost-saving measure.
I suspect if pilots stick around in "the future" it won't be to allay people's fears of a "ghost plane" or whatever. Instead it'll be because hiring a human operator is cheaper than automating it.
People already accept vehicles like roller coasters to not require a "driver."
Modern airliners largely fly themselves without human intervention. The more tricky parts are handled by human pilots; I'm sure the technology exists even now to let computers handle that as well but it's probably cheaper upfront and better for airline companies to have human pilots at the moment.
Right now, a variety of companies are rolling out "driverless" cars. I can't say how this experiment will turn out; I hope it goes well. I personally hate the waste of time of driving if some computer can handle it safely while I play with my smartphone or something, I'm all for it. It also promises mobility for the elderly and similar people who cannot get driver's licenses in our world.
Most certainly, we'll see things like driverless cars, operatorless trains, and captainless boats before pilotless airplanes. But then again, I could be wrong in that; there's a lot more money in airplanes than trains or boats so there might be more capital to develop it.
However, if such cars get accepted, I foresee a future where people would be perfectly accepting of pilotless airplanes. The idea sounds vaguely unsettling to us but who knows what our kids will think. Or their kids for that matter. People can adapt to many things, especially if it makes little difference to them in the end. Initial versions would most certainly still have the pilot as a Larry Niven-esque "the ship handles everything for me but wearing my uniform" type thing, but eventually I'd think that pilots would be eliminated as an unnecessary expense during some cost-saving measure.
I suspect if pilots stick around in "the future" it won't be to allay people's fears of a "ghost plane" or whatever. Instead it'll be because hiring a human operator is cheaper than automating it.
The biggest problem with pilot-less air craft is the fact that if something happens that is not within the scope of it's programmed responses...the drone cant respond. On top of that if the system crashes, or the instruments start giving bad information,( both of which are common) the machine has no ability to compensate. if it's artificial horizon tells it it is climbing at 2 degrees it noses over, if the gyro is stuck, or reading wrong it cant look out the window and go Oh..I have a problem here. Drone cars are dealing with 2 dimensional space, with a very solid surface that is generally well behaved. Aircraft are dealing with 3d space, and the air is seldom well behaved.
Humans are prone to failure, and they can be deceived by faulty electronics but they have a built in troubleshooting system that allows for non linear problem solving, and intuitive solutions...until that ability s perfected in machines humans still have a job.
NOW I do think that self piloting aircraft will be very common, but I also believe that a pilot will always be setting in the seat even with advanced autopilots if for no other reason to take control when Murphy comes calling.
Humans are prone to failure, and they can be deceived by faulty electronics but they have a built in troubleshooting system that allows for non linear problem solving, and intuitive solutions...until that ability s perfected in machines humans still have a job.
NOW I do think that self piloting aircraft will be very common, but I also believe that a pilot will always be setting in the seat even with advanced autopilots if for no other reason to take control when Murphy comes calling.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
There was a proposal somewhere for a pilotless drone taxi.
That may or may not take off, but if the drone malfunctions, casualties would tend to be minimized.
It's unlikely to be viable until they develop safeguards to prevent them being used as kamikaze planes.
That may or may not take off, but if the drone malfunctions, casualties would tend to be minimized.
It's unlikely to be viable until they develop safeguards to prevent them being used as kamikaze planes.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I recall some company and/or US Army press release saying they're testing a system that will wrest control of drones and locate the operator, preferable to shooting it down.
To be employed especially around airports and Federal buildings.
To be employed especially around airports and Federal buildings.
Similar threads
